Re: [IAEP] [Sugar-devel] A Better Idea...

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 01:28, Tony Anderson  wrote:
> You still confuse me. Someone who is not on the Board cannot submit a motion
> (email or otherwise)

This is simply, factually, false.

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16403.html
Walter notes that

(a) the GPL motion - **which you voted to approve** - was submitted

(i) by email, and

(ii) by Sebastian, not a SLOB member, and

(b) it was voted on in a private thread on the SLOBs list, which
Walter regretfully informs us he forgot to CC to the lists.

In http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16429.html
Walter reports the outcome of the vote, but it is impossible for
members to verify this.

I am not accusing Walter of the board of acting in bad faith. I am
simply stating facts, and posting motions to avoid procedural
mistakes.

When the board is voting on financial matters, procedural mistakes
become more serious, so I am eager to resolve the cause of the
problems _now_ before they are a problem _later._

> I am certainly not aware of any motion
> made by a member of the Board which has not been handled entirely in public.

Here is another recent motion which is reportedly passed but I can not
verify the votes.

The motion posted by Walter Bender which you can see here,

http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2016-May/018196.html

and

http://www.mail-archive.com/iaep%40lists.sugarlabs.org/msg16405.html

The text of the motion is:

Motion: to reimburse Edgar Quispe for expenses
incurred representing Sugar Labs at the Traducción
e interpretación en las lenguas originarias del Perú
meeting in Lima. The cost is $168.88.

Please provide me with 7 links to 7 emails on a public mailing list
from 2016-05-05 to 2016-05-12 for each of the votes for this motion
that you say you are aware of.

>> Since you are on the SLOB list I am not surprised, but since I am not, how
>> can I know?
>
> The meetings of the Board are public. Yes, I am on the SLOBs list, and I can
> assure you there is nothing secret happening there. Your continued
> assertions that Board members are somehow deliberately acting behind the
> backs of SL members is not helpful.

I am not accusing anyone of acting behind anyone's backs. As you know
I have engaged the SLOBs list privately over legally sensitive
trademark matters, which I hope demonstrates that I understand and
agree with the need for a private board discussion forum.

What I am frustrated about is the board voting privately, and I see
room to improve board procedures since there is a chance of
potentially voting privately which I think ought to be formally
avoided.

I don't mean to be making accusations, rather sincerely stating the
facts as I see them. It's a fact, widely acknowledged, that the board
_can_ vote on public motions privately. I hope this will be rectified.

The reason I am feeling frustration is that Adam, a board member,
asked me to administer the board's record of decisions on the wiki,
and my effort to do so has been fettered: reports of motion outcomes
are reported by the chair - Walter - but I could not verify those
votes in the public mail archive.

Therefore I have offered a respectful motion to improve the
functioning of the organization by requiring votes on public motions
to be cross posted to the public mailing list and the private one in
order to be valid.

I am not sure why anyone opposes that motion, and why it was not
seconded and approved.

Responding to the overall situation of the board not acting promptly,
I have posted motions that I wish to see the board adopt to order the
monthly meeting in a productive way.

Like Laura, I feel hurt because, like everyone, I have a need to be
heard and acknowledged, and she and I have contributed to the
improvement of the board but our need has not been met. I also think
that Caryl's motions have also not been given much support from each
board member to help the motions reach a version that can pass.

> Your assertion that Board members
> are not acting promptly and decisively is not supported by the record and is
> also not helpful.

I have explained exactly and precisely to you how the board members
have not acted promptly and decisively.

I've also asked in other threads for the board to each post your
thoughts about each motion that has been posted by members that have
not been publicly commented on, earlier this week.

I do not know what else I can do to make this completely clear to you.

-- 
Cheers
Dave
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Oversight Board decisions page

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 01:05, Laura Vargas  wrote:
> I confess I'm not motivated to propose any new Motions to current Board as
> none has even made it to a meeting, none has get seconded and besides Tony,
> until today, I have 0 feedback from all other SLOBs.

I sympathise.

Perhaps Claudia and Tony's recent comments about having all motions
undergo an open drafting process, and requiring a SLOB to post the
motion and (currently, as I understand it, therefore) another SLOB to
second the motion before the other 5 vote on it, is what the SLOB
would prefer.

I encourage the SLOB to make a motion to make that process required in
future meetings, if that is the case.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 11:35, Caryl Bigenho  wrote:
> Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is
> "precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I
> am proposing it

I am happy you and Seb agree that clearing the logjam at meetings is
needed. I hope more members of the SLOB will publicly consider this
motion.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 10:47, Walter Bender  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>> On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva 
>> wrote:
>>> El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió:
>>>
>>> Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
>>> meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will
>>> make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will
>>> announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB
>>> member will announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the
>>> motion; the chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are voted
>>> on; the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of any
>>> topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled.
>
> If I was a SLOB I would support this motion. The passivity of the SLOBs
> is disappointing. It is better to vote and fail, than to linger.
>
> While I appreciate that such a mechanism might be useful in cleaning the
> pipes,

Every meeting that I have attended has had a 'blocked pipe' vibe.

> I think that we really want to take advantage of the meetings for
> discussions. It was my hope that discussion about motions could be largely
> held before hand and discussion of ideas held at the meeting.

Then why would you not second this motion?

The final part of the motion is,

"the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of any
topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled."

The element of discussions at the meetings is crucial, and I
considered this when I drafted it. The motion ensures that discussions
about motions must have been entirely held before hand, that motions
are voted on, and allows for discussion of ideas at the meeting
following the resolution of all pending motions.

I don't understand your objection, at all :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 11:56, Sean DALY  wrote:
> an agreed upon partnership placed under publication embargo. SL wouldn't
> likely need to embargo, but a partner might wish to. This PR-smart approach
> has been transformed by the Internet and social media these past few years,
> but

Similarly, what does that have to do with public motions?

If the board wants to act in private, they don't need to vote on
public motions to do so.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 11:41, Adam Holt  wrote:
> it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive Director
> (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these kinds of
> high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible apprised of
> deliberations -- while preserving interim confidentiality wherever and
> whenever necessary to protect the full/strategic interests of 501(c)3 Sugar
> Labs.

What does that have to do with public motions?
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Dave Crossland]

On 21 June 2016 at 10:49, Walter Bender  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>>
>>> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent
>>> to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.
>
> It is my belief (hope) that the only time a vote is only sent to one list
> rather than both is when there is an oversight by the sender. Vote should be
> public, but if the vote is forwarded to both lists after the fact, it should
> still be valid.

If this motion is reposted and passes, then if a vote is sent only to
SLOBs it will not be valid, but if it is forwarded to both lists after
the fact, it then becomes valid.

Is the motion's process an improvement?

I think so: it adds clarify by ensuring that votes can be counted by members.
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] Sugar Digest 2016-06-21

[Dave Crossland]

Thanks for posting Walter! This is all good news :)
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

[IAEP] Sugar Digest 2016-06-21

[Walter Bender]

== Sugar Digest ==

1. Marvin Minsky was fond of saying that there is nothing more dangerous
than when a roomful of people all agree with each other. We don't have to
worry about that in the Sugar community!!! Marvin also observed that "it's
very important to have friends who can solve problems you can't." The
diversity of our community is its strength.

Another Marvin quote relevant to our current quest to define ourselves as a
community: "Our present culture may be largely shaped by this strange idea
of isolating children's thought from adult thought. Perhaps the way our
culture educates its children better explains why most of us come out as
dumb as they do, than it explains how some of us come out as smart as they
do." As Laura Vargas put it recently, Sugar Labs is a community "where you
can learn how to design, develop and deploy high-quality Free Software."
Within our community, children and adults are working together.

2. Sam Parkinson is our new release manager. Sam, a former GCI winner from
Australia, has been responsible for many of the patches to the Sugar
toolkit over the past few releases and has also been one of our most
prelific code reviewers. Martin Abente, our release manager for the past
four releases, has agreed to mentor Sam during the transition. Tip of the
hat to Martin for all of his contributions and continued support.

3. Mariah Noelle Villarreal just got back from the Google Code-in reunion,
where she represented Sugar Labs. She had a chance to meet Ezequiel and
Piotr, our two winners, and spend time with members of the other
participating projects. Mariah brought multiple copies of Sugar on a Stick
to hand out and reports that there was a positive reception, especially
among some of the parents in attendance. She also voiced some
disappointment with the degree of awareness of Software Libre among
attendees. FWIW, Devin Ulibarri and I are working on a new paper regarding
the importance of Software Libre to education. Stay tuned.

4. I just got back from a trip to Santiago, Chile, where I was hosted by
the education division of Fundación Chile. (Cecilia Rodriguez Alcala
Garcia, formally of Educa Paraguay, was responsible for my invitation to
run some workshops and give a keynote address at Creo Chile.)  The theme of
my workshops was programming as a vehicle for engaging in critical
thinking. I introduced Turtle Blocks and Music Blocks first to a team of
engineers from throughout the foundation, then to an executive group, then
to a "hacker" group attending the Creo Chile event, and finally to a group
of children and their parents. I was assisted by Andrea Vasquez Garcia,
without whom I would have been lost. In addition, I participated in a
workshop run by a local rap artist, Nelson Bobadilla Alvarado, and an
educator, Francisca Petrovich Ursic. We did a collaborative, interactive
Music Blocks program, whereby we could programmatically participate in the
performance. A bit crude, but I learned a lot in the process. My keynote,
which I have uploaded to [1], focused on Sugar and the role of Software
Libre in education.

In the workshop for executives, I was challenged to write a Turtle program
to calculate the expected value of the number of coin flips required to get
three heads or three tails in a row. My response can be seen at [2].

One sub-goal of my trip was to seek advice regarding a reference machine
for Sugar. Alas, I was not yet able to get a definitive answer, as the
foundation does not directly distribute hardware and the ministry of
education has a wide variance in the types of machines they distribute. But
I hope to get some feedback on this topic in the coming weeks.

While I was in Santiago, Chile defeated Mexico in the Copa América. I
credited the win to Sugar (and the Chilean futbol shirt I was wearing).
Hopefully it will mean that Sugar will find a warn reception in Chile.

5. Google Summer of Code is well underway. Mentors are writing mid-term
evaluations this week. Be sure to check out the great work being done by
our interns, including [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8].

6. On the flight back from Santiago, I wrote a Python script to convert
glif files into Turtle Block projects. (Tip of the hat to Eli Heuer for
providing me some sample glif files.) The results are quite fun (See [9]).
Next up, a version where each knot and control point is represented by a
turtle, and thus the glyph will be editable.

=== In the Community ===

7. Gary Stager has written a nice tribute to Cynthia Solomon in celebration
of the 45th anniversary of the Maker Movement [10].

8. Our next oversight board meeting [11] is Friday, 1 July at 19:00 UTC
[12]. Please join us on irc.freenode.net #sugar-meeting.

=== Tech Talk ===

9. Sam has announced the second release leading up to Sugar 0.110. Recent
changes include:
* James Cameron fixed Gtk 3.6 compatibility and an edge case with bundle
erasure
* Utkarsh Tiwari added a WiFi password visibility toggle
* Abhijit Patel added a PopWindow 

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Tony Anderson]

Hi, Adam

I don't think this is relevant to this motion. Clearly, if such a 
negotiation were to happen, the Board could move to consider the
matter in 'executive session'. In the meantime, there is no reason not 
to make votes public (and the discussion of them in the meetings

which is already public.)

Tony

On 06/21/2016 05:41 PM, Adam Holt wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Walter Bender 
> wrote:


On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland > wrote:

Hi

I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each
member of SLOB.

On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland > wrote:

Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if
they are sent
to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.




-- 
Cheers

Dave

___
SLOBs mailing list
sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs


It is my belief (hope) that the only time a vote is only sent to
one list rather than both is when there is an oversight by the
sender. Vote should be public,


Should but not must.

There can be (have been, and might be in future be) times when Sugar 
Labs needs in-the-interim-confidential negotiations with 
billion-dollar sponsor/ally governments and orgs or all kinds.


Naturally merger/acquisition or multimillion-dollar sponsorship 
situations affect almost everyone, who cannot all be at the 
negotiating table, nor can all Board members cannot possibly always agree.


Hence it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive 
Director (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these 
kinds of high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible 
apprised of deliberations -- while preserving interim confidentiality 
wherever and whenever necessary to protect the full/strategic 
interests of 501(c)3 Sugar Labs.


but if the vote is forwarded to both lists after the fact, it
should still be valid.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender

Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org


___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org 
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

-- 
Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @

http://unleashkids.org !



___
SLOBs mailing list
sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs


___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Adam Holt]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Walter Bender 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
>> SLOB.
>>
>> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent
>>> to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Dave
>>
>> ___
>> SLOBs mailing list
>> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>>
>>
> It is my belief (hope) that the only time a vote is only sent to one list
> rather than both is when there is an oversight by the sender. Vote should
> be public,
>

Should but not must.

There can be (have been, and might be in future be) times when Sugar Labs
needs in-the-interim-confidential negotiations with billion-dollar
sponsor/ally governments and orgs or all kinds.

Naturally merger/acquisition or multimillion-dollar sponsorship situations
affect almost everyone, who cannot all be at the negotiating table, nor can
all Board members cannot possibly always agree.

Hence it's generally a legal/fiduciary responsibility of the Executive
Director (or similar) to consult privately with the Board in these kinds of
high-stakes situations -- keeping as many as possible apprised of
deliberations -- while preserving interim confidentiality wherever and
whenever necessary to protect the full/strategic interests of 501(c)3 Sugar
Labs.

but if the vote is forwarded to both lists after the fact, it should still
> be valid.
>
> -walter
>
> --
> Walter Bender
> Sugar Labs
> http://www.sugarlabs.org
> 
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
> --
> 
> 
> Unsung Heroes of OLPC, interviewed live @
> http://unleashkids.org !
>
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Caryl Bigenho]

Walter is right. Ideas are good. Time coordination is difficult. The hour is 
"precious." Motion B would help clear the logjam at meetings. That is why I am 
proposing it

Caryl

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:08 AM, Sebastian Silva  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> El 21/06/16 a las 09:47, Walter Bender escribió:
>> 
>> While I appreciate that such a mechanism might be useful in cleaning the 
>> pipes, I think that we really want to take advantage of the meetings for 
>> discussions. It was my hope that discussion about motions could be largely 
>> held before hand and discussion of ideas held at the meeting.
>> 
>> -walter
> People could get together on chat half an hour or so before the official 
> meeting starts...
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Sebastian Silva]

El 21/06/16 a las 09:47, Walter Bender escribió:
>
> While I appreciate that such a mechanism might be useful in cleaning
> the pipes, I think that we really want to take advantage of the
> meetings for discussions. It was my hope that discussion about motions
> could be largely held before hand and discussion of ideas held at the
> meeting.
>
> -walter
People could get together on chat half an hour or so before the official
meeting starts...//
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to undertake a fund raising drive.

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:47 AM, Laura Vargas 
wrote:

>
>
> 2016-06-09 6:21 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> Laura,
>>
>> Do you know when in November this meeting is? It was not apparent to me
>> looking at the website.
>>
>>
> Walter,
>
> Are you planning to attend?
>

I don't know if I can. I am probably going to be in the region in October
(Turtle Art Day in Caacupe). Another trip might be impossible.

>
>
>
>> -walter
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>>
>>> On 8 June 2016 at 10:37, Laura Vargas  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > First, please let me clarify that the event I'm proposing would take
>>> please
>>> > in Bolivia
>>>
>>> YES! Bolivia!! Sorry about that 'think-o' :) I meant to write Bolivia!!
>>> XD
>>>
>>> > in anticipation to the III Cumbre de Comunicación de las Lenguas
>>> > Indígenas de América.
>>> >
>>> > That said, according to what I wrote on the pad, I am asking any
>>> interested
>>> > party -to assist- to the Pre-CumbreSugarSummitt to fill their personal
>>> > application(s) with the Cumbre"s procdure and then/if accepted and if
>>> in
>>> > need of Travel Funds to assist to the Pre-CumbreSugarSummitt to ask
>>> directly
>>> > to the Trip Advisor Grant Director Walter Bender who might or not
>>> approve
>>> > such request on a one by one basis and according with his Budget
>>> capacity
>>> > for promoting such events.
>>>
>>> I thought SLOB approval is required for all spending, and Walter
>>> doesn't (or no longer has) unilateral spending authority for the
>>> TI-earmarked funds?
>>>
>>> > I'm still waiting on the committee from the Cumbre to confirm our
>>> > -somosazucar - Sugar Labs Perú participation sharing the translation
>>> > experiences of the Manual, the Quechua, the Aymara and the Awajún
>>> > translations, made here in Perú.  We hope to hear from them soon.
>>>
>>> Great!! :D
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Walter Bender
>> Sugar Labs
>> http://www.sugarlabs.org
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Laura V.
> I SomosAZUCAR.Org
>
> Identi.ca/Skype acaire
> IRC kaametza
>
> Happy Learning!
>
>


-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
> SLOB.
>
> On 7 June 2016 at 10:00, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
>> Motion: to consider email votes on motions only valid if they are sent
>> to both the SLOBs and IAEP mailing lists.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
It is my belief (hope) that the only time a vote is only sent to one list
rather than both is when there is an oversight by the sender. Vote should
be public, but if the vote is forwarded to both lists after the fact, it
should still be valid.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] [SLOBS] Motion: New monthly SLOB meeting procedure

[Walter Bender]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Dave Crossland  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I would appreciate public consideration of this motion by each member of
> SLOB.
>
> On 4 June 2016 at 11:38, Sebastian Silva 
> wrote:
>
>> If I was a SLOB I would support this motion. The passivity of the SLOBs
>> is disappointing. It is better to vote and fail, than to linger.
>>
>> El 03/06/16 a las 16:10, Dave Crossland escribió:
>>
>> Motion: to agree the following procedure for all future monthly SLOB
>> meetings: the chair will confirm the meeting meets quorum; the chair will
>> make any announcements submitted to them before the meeting; the chair will
>> announce the first motion pending a vote on that day; each present SLOB
>> member will announce their vote; the chair will announce the outcome of the
>> motion; the chair will announce the next motion, until all motions are
>> voted on; the chair will invite everyone attending to an open discussion of
>> any topic until the meeting ends at the time scheduled.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop 
>> project!)IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.orghttp://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> ___
> SLOBs mailing list
> sl...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/slobs
>
>
While I appreciate that such a mechanism might be useful in cleaning the
pipes, I think that we really want to take advantage of the meetings for
discussions. It was my hope that discussion about motions could be largely
held before hand and discussion of ideas held at the meeting.

-walter

-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org

___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep

Re: [IAEP] 172 XO-1s for $24 each (+ freight) $4,000 total

[Walter Bender]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Laura Vargas 
wrote:

>
>
> 2016-06-13 19:05 GMT+08:00 Walter Bender :
>
>> I have to say I with Samuel Greenfeld on this one. There are lots of
>> potential issues with these machines (depending upon how they have been
>> stored and maintained.) They could well have dead batteries (both the main
>> battery and the battery for the RTC). They most certainly will need an
>> investment in time by someone getting them unlocked and reflashed as well.
>> That said, if we go that route, I have two bulk battery charging racks we
>> could add to the mix.
>>
>> Google just donated 8000 chromebooks to the X-Prize. Maybe we could try
>> to go that route?
>>
>>
> Reading at http://learning.xprize.org/about/guidelines I found that
> registration to participate in the competition is now closed. Is this the
> same you are suggesting?
>

I was not suggesting we apply for the X-Prize. (As I said in an earlier
thread, I didn't think it was a good match for Sugar Labs either as an
organization or in terms of pedagogy.) I referred to the X-Prize donation
only in order to substantiate the idea of soliciting a small donation of
hardware from Google as a reference platform.

regards.

-walter

>
> -walter
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Samuel Greenfeld 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> FOB (Freight on Board) means that the responsibility for customs fees,
>>> shipping charges, etc. belongs to the buyer.  XOs directly purchased from
>>> OLPC historically had similar terms.
>>>
>>> The shipping calculator on that listing can give you a rough idea of
>>> what it would cost to get to you in the US (around $500-$1000 uninsured).
>>>
>>> Personally I think it is a waste of funds and time given that someone
>>> will have to go through all 172 XOs to verify their functionality,
>>> determine which 10-year-old batteries still can hold a charge, make
>>> repairs, etc.  It would primarily be of interest to projects which already
>>> get donated XO-1s and could salvage parts of necessary, but not necessarily
>>> at the $4k price point.
>>>
>>> Reselling the laptops as usable also would incur a bit of liability that
>>> the recycler (selling as-is) is not willing to take.  About the only good
>>> thing is that this recycler does not appear to be shipping from
>>> Massachusetts, where one recycler was selling pre-release parts even after
>>> being told they were not usable by anyone else.
>>>
>>>
>>> While we seem to have discovered Sugar Labs has money this year, Sugar
>>> Labs is not a bank for everyone's little pet project.  *Before* we spend
>>> any significant portion of funds beyond the significant amount already
>>> allocated for stipends & translation, I would like to see proof that Sugar
>>> Labs can fund raise most of the money already spent back.
>>>
>>> The only valid way I could see doing this would be to ask the recycler
>>> if they would be willing to just donate the laptops to the SFC (or another
>>> 501(c)3 registered XO-using nonprofit) and take the profit as a tax
>>> writeoff.  But *before* this gets done, it really needs to be discussed by
>>> Sugar Labs' board {NOT people begging the recycler to do so via individual
>>> actions - if anything that would encourage them to raise their expected
>>> price}.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:08 AM, Sean DALY  wrote:
>>>
 they mean loading dock i.e. where you send the truck
 Sean


 On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Sam Parkinson <
 sam.parkins...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dave, I don't frequent EBay listings, but it says:
>
> >  Customer is responsible for arrangement of freight trucking pickup
> and insurance from our dock
>
> Is that referring to the charging docks or the palette of laptops?
>
> Obviously this is a small detail that doesn't effect the discussion,
> but it would probably change the figures a bit.
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Dave Crossland  wrote:
>
> Hi
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Qty-172-OLPC-One-Laptop-Per-Child-XO-1-w-7-5-TFT-256MB-RAM-1024KB-ROM-/262478690514
> I propose that Sugar Labs buy these, image them with the 0.110 release, 
> and
> sale them to raise funds; individual units regularly clear $100 each, so
> this will raise around $13,000
> --
> Cheers Dave ___ IAEP --
> It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>
>
> ___
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>


 ___
 IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)